The Social Construction of Nepalese Rurality: A Finnish Tourists' Perspective

Bikash Gurung

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF NEPALESE RURALITY:

A FINNISH TOURISTS’ PERSPECTIVE

Tourism Research, TourCIM Master’s thesis Spring 2020

Author: Bikash Gurung

Degree program/Subject: Tourism Research, TourCIM (Tourism, Culture and International Management)

The type of work: Master’s thesis Number of pages: 64

Year: 2020 Abstract

The concept of rurality varies depending upon the individual experiences of tourists and their cultural background. Some might relate it to gastronomy and others might relate it to local community, culture or even landscapes. Since it has such varieties of cultural meanings and styles of living, deconstruction of rurality becomes rather challenging. In the case of Nepal, with over 81% of the total population living in the rural areas, rural tourism has always been one of the most important factors for economic growth and poverty reduction in rural areas.

The aim of the study is to find out what kind of meanings do the Finns construct of rurality in Nepalese context. It examines the viewpoints of the Finnish tourists in three major themes i.e.

rurality in general, hospitality and authenticity with the help of research questions focusing on (1) social and cultural meanings that Finnish tourists in Nepalese context, (2) host-guest relationship between the locals and Finnish tourists and its affects conceptualizing rurality, and (3) role of authenticity on creating rural identity for Finnish tourists.

The research method of the study is qualitative with interview as primary method. The semi- structured interviews are carried out with seven different tourists of Finnish origin who have travelled to and spend few weeks in a rural destination of Nepal.

The study results showed that location attributes, contrast living lifestyles and social norms forms the socio-cultural meanings of rurality in Nepalese context. Similarly, construction of meaning of rurality can also be explored through language and active engagement with the local community. Lastly, authenticity is considered to be a motivation for Finns to travel to rural destinations and they have individual perceptions on how they construct the meaning rurality.

The research can provide an insight to the present rural tourism scenario of Nepal. The responses of these tourists can further be used as a reference for planning future developmental projects in rural areas, which of course, should be done in accordance with the interests and involvement of the local community.

Keywords: rurality, rural tourism, authenticity, hospitality, social construction

1 INTRODUCTION ... 5

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ... 5

1.2 NEPAL AS A TOURISM DESTINATION ... 8

1.3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ... 12

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ... 15

1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ... 16

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 18

2.1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF RURALITY AND RURAL TOURISM ... 18

2.2 HOST-GUEST RELATIONSHIP ... 24

2.3 RURAL AUTHENTICITY ... 28

3 METHODOLOGY ... 32

3.1 RESEARCH METHOD ... 32

3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ... 32

3.3 DATA ANALYSIS... 33

3.4 RESEARCH ETHICS ... 34

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 36

4.1 SOCIO-CULTURAL AND RURAL SETTINGS ... 36

4.2 IMPLICATIONS OF HOST-GUEST RELATIONSHIP IN RURAL AREAS ... 41

4.3 EXPLORING AUTHENTICITY ... 45

5 CONCLUSIONS ... 48

LIST OF REFERENCES ... 53

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... 62

APPENDIX 1 ... 63

APPENDIX 2 ... 64

List of figures

Figure 1. Visit Nepal campaign logos………11 Figure 2. Circular transformation process……….….26 List of tables

Table 1. National criteria for defining rural………....20

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

The population in the rural areas has gradually aged and the traditional rural lifestyle is slowly being overtaken by the new technological transformations (Lane, 1994). These technological developments are more present in the urban areas, which are characterized as more populated, considered central business districts and residential zones with more options for source of income such as manufacturing and services (Nagle (1998, p. 14). The strength of urbanization process in the urban areas consume the surrounding rural communities and by doing so, the rural area is exposed to much larger market affecting the rural communities and the concept of rural (Ouchi, 2010, p. 207). Nevertheless, the essence of rurality is very important for the rural communities. Despite difficulty in accessing the nearby cities and lack of infrastructure;

the unique natural surroundings and high quality of natural environment of the rural area along with relaxed pace of lifestyle, it still remains as an attraction for many tourists. As the agriculture related activities are becoming highly mechanized with less manpower, there has been the need for the rural destinations to conserve and promote the nature, landscapes, historic buildings land and traditional rural societies (Shakya, 2011, p. 109). In addition, an alternative source of income has to be identified since the rural economies cannot be always dependent traditional like farming and agriculture, thus alternative source of income has to be identified (Liu, 2006). According to Rasoolimanesh, Ringle, Jaafar and Ramayah (2017), through the promotion of their heritage and identity, showcasing their locally produced food products and demonstration of their cultural activities, they can use tourism as the tool for improving their rural lifestyle, and bringing other positive changes in the community

However, this should be done by carefully utilizing the above-mentioned mentioned resources as Dashper (2014, p. 6) warns that as tourism expands, with the arrival of international tourists, many rural communities are in need of including more active and technology dependent activities, which could be very demanding because they do not possess those attributes. Okech, Haghiri and George (2012) have similar opinion that that rural areas are in disadvantage in terms of tourism development because there is already lack of infrastructure and skilled manpower, little interest from the investors and most importantly difficulty in accessibility.

Tourism development in developing countries are mostly controlled by government agencies and large tourism firms, with locals marginalized and their share of the benefit is usually small

(Liu and Wall, 2006). Then, they assign third party organizations for handling the project by more or less leaving out the involvement of the local communities. This brings discontent in local communities against the government and it would be difficult for the project to fulfill its objectives. Salazar (2012) identifies the crucial factor for the project to run smoothly is the optimum involvement of the local community and for the sake of their benefits. It is defined as community-based tourism (CBT) where the local community is focused in decision-making process while formulating developmental projects and has a fair distribution of the tourism benefits to all the stakeholders (Salazar, 2012). On the other hand, irrespective of any kind of approach, it has to be understood that, there could be a chance that of community not acting as a complete host. It is because, tourism might not be the main source of livelihood or there will be some residents that are not satisfied about the establishment of guesthouses, hotels and other tourism services, which are infrastructures for tourism development process (Singh, Timothy and Dowling, 2003, p. 10). So, during the process of rural tourism development, it is crucial to understand the locals’ perception on tourists, tourists’ impact on the dynamics of the local community, tourism development, and their views on impacts and benefits of tourism activities within the community.

In the case of rural Nepal, the tourism development in rural Nepal has been done in an unplanned fashion with sudden changes in the housing constructions and functional change from agriculture to tourism leading traditional degradation (Shakya, 2009, p. 124). Even if the policies are made, people responsible for implementing them lacks competence and experience. In general, commercialization of the rural tourism also fails to hit their mark when the local community cannot come to terms with the needs of tourism industry. Shakya (2009, p. 125) further stresses that the increase in tourism especially in the mountainous trekking regions, the consumption of fuel primarily firewood is causing deforestation and affecting the natural environment. These environmental or natural settings for trekking and hiking are the key activities to have authentic experience for the tourists in the mountain region. So, the long- term solution is to make proper measure to take care of nature that is providing a stage for these adventure activities. In addition, constant monitoring and evaluation of tourism impacts in those areas has to be carried out. However, there have been some positive results from various programs and initiatives focused on rural tourism. One of the most successful is TRPAP, The tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program. This program focused on raising awareness of tourism issues, mainly focusing on Community Based Tourism model, thus

empowering the local people and engaging them in tourism (UNDP Nepal, 2001). Similarly, the research done by Nyaupane, Poudel and Timothy (2018) in two touristic villages in Nepal;

Gandruk and Sauraha, shows that through tourism, the traditional roles of women have changed within the family and the community, as they have become more active through tourism activities. In addition, institutions and committees have been formed to carry out conservation and development programs. Finally, as the mountainous region is one of the most visited area, it certainly has changed the image of rural lifestyle of the Sherpas. In his study, Stevens (2009) found out, due to tourism the living lifestyle of Sherpas living in the mountainous Everest region and improvement. It also further states that the development process in the Everest region has been done without much negative effect on the region’s environment and cultural aspects. It has provided jobs opportunities for the poor and increased the local agricultural business.

During 2018, Nepal witnessed over a million tourist for the first time in history with approx.

1.1million, out of which, approx. 224k Europeans were Europeans (Nepalsansar.com, 2018).

Germans were the highest with 38k followed by France and Spain with 31k and 15k respectively. The latest data on Finnish tourist is from 2017, when 2,288 tourists visited Nepal (World Tourism Organization, 2019). For purpose of the visit in 2018, 55.5% of the total tourists’ chose Trekking & Mountaineering (Ministry of Culture, Tourism & Civil Aviation, 2019). During the first half of 2019, approx. 104k Europeans travelled to Nepal (Nepalsansar.com, 2019). Most of the previous research on rural tourism in Nepal has focused in relation to its effects, thus lacking on studies exploring locals’ and tourists’ perspective in different themes. The interest for this study is further based on my own interest towards rural tourism due to my personal rural upbringing background in Nepal. Also, in the near future, I am planning to return to Nepal and pursue my entrepreneurial aspirations in the field of tourism. I see a huge opportunity especially in adventure travel as there are numerous rural settlements all over the country, high mountains and perfect terrain to do all sorts of activities.

And, this study would be very valuable in understanding tourist’s motivation to travel to these rural areas.

1.2 Nepal as a tourism destination

Tourism in Nepal is considered as one of the largest industries and probably the largest source of foreign exchange and revenue. Foreigners were allowed for the first time in 1951 and tourism only during early 1960s, when mountaineering teams visited the country for the first time to establish adventure travel programs (Zurick, 1992). After Tenzing Norgay and Sir Edmund Hillary’s successful ascent of Mount Everest in 1953, Nepal started to receive lot of publicity among the mountaineering enthusiasts. And, with it, the trend of mountaineering and other adventure related activities started to gain popularity and also because of natural sceneries, mountainous and rugged terrain, Nepal has been one of the most popular destinations for trekkers and climbers from all over the world as almost all the northern part of the country is covered by Himalayan mountain range and ideal for different type of treks and adventure related activities. Upadhayaya (2011) also points out that these have been one of the most productive activities in rural Nepal to create income and expand benefits on rural areas.

Nepal’s Tourism Policy wasn’t formulated until 1995. When the ‘People’s movement’ in 1990 brought an end to the absolute monarchy (Krämer, 2010, p. 47) and democracy was restored in Nepal; it led to the newly formed government to make the Tourism Policy. Along with sustainable tourism development program, upgrading infrastructure and developing new destinations in rural areas was considered major objectives (Gautam, 2008). Then in 1996, His majesty’s Government of Nepal announced the year 1998 as ‘Visit Nepal 98’. The main aim was to promote overall tourism and strengthen the image of Nepal as a special tourism destination. The main objectives included developing eco-friendly tourism products, ensure regional development through tourism, and improve and creating awareness about tourism benefits to the Nepali population (Travel Nepal, 1998). During this time, the tourism in the villages in the rural areas was gradually increasing. The foundation of village tourism was based upon the rural tourism policy that was launched in 1995 in Sirubari village. The homestays, resorts and guesthouses were arranged for the tourists so that the tourists can experience the realities of rural lifestyle by living among the local communities. In 2001, Tourism for Rural Poverty Alleviation Program (TRPAP) was lunched under the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Civil Aviation with the help of United Nation Development Program Nepal (UNDP/Nepal). The main aim of the program was to alleviate poverty through

sustainable rural tourism. As it was done in Sirubari, model sites with tourism potential were selected with especially rural tourism potential as the main index and tourism development plan was prepared together with active local participation (Bista, 2006). The TRPAP has been instrumental in rural development, empowering women in rural communities, promoting ecotourism and helping National Tourism Board (NTB) on rural tourism planning, strategy and implementation (Dhakal, Khadka, Sharma and Choegyal, 2007). It has further helped to spread the awareness about the importance of tourism in poverty alleviation in rural areas.

Since then, rural tourism program has been constantly part of tourism policy and national plans.

For instance, one of the main priorities of Tourism Policy 2008 was to create employment in the rural areas and share benefits in the grassroots level (Nepal Law Commission, 2015). Since then various policies, plans and projects have been implemented to develop rural areas through tourism. The Tourism Year 2011 lunched by NTB also focused on developing areas and possibly building infrastructures such as roads, electricity, water supply and means of communication to the rural areas. Similarly, one of the primary objectives of the Tourism Vision 2020 is to develop infrastructure, create employment, involve women and deprived communities in rural areas and spread the benefits of tourists to the grassroots level (Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation, 2009). Following it, several tourism developmental projects were started in differential rural areas of the country. The concept was to share tourism benefits to wider area of the country along with traditional trekking routes and mountaineering. There were several home stays being opened in most of the villages, which provided the tourists an opportunity to get involved directly with the rural culture and local community that were associated with it. According to Department of Industry, Nepal (2017), industries oriented/related to tourism were the 3^rd most registered industries during the first eight months of the fiscal year 2016/2017 with 1,406 registrations; and within the same period 10.75% of the capital investments were made on tourism industry. When we compare the numbers of tourist arrivals over 15 years’ timeline, most of the early 2000s were disrupted by the civil war (Bhattarai et al., 2005). It was only after the end of civil war in 2006 that the arrival of tourists started to gain a bit of momentum. The rural areas were the ones that were mostly affected by the civil war thus the tourists in routes for adventure tourism in the rural areas such as trekking and hiking were really limited (HuffPost, 2016).

The earthquake in 2015 almost brought Nepal to its knees. The earthquake affected almost 2/3 of the country in various magnitudes causing a huge impact in tourism industry. The urban area surrounding the capital Katmandu was considered to be crisis hit and various monuments and heritage sites within the capital was destroyed. As a result of it, over 80% of the bookings were cancelled with more than 70% decrease of the tourist flows in Kathmandu valley, and over 90% decrease in destinations outside the valley (The Himalayan Times, 2015). Overall, in 2015, the number of total tourist arrival dropped by 32% (Ministry of Culture, Tourism &

Civil Aviation, 2016). Many of the villages in the mountain region were completely wiped off and many others were destroyed beyond repair. Similarly, trekking routes in Mansalu, Langtang and Everest region were also affected badly. The rural communities that relied much of their livelihood in tourism had to struggle a lot to make ends meet. To make the matter worse, the Nepali government’s reconstruction efforts and policies were mainly focused in the capital region where many well-known UNESCO heritage sites were destroyed severely and very little attention was paid to the destinations in rural areas which were affected equally or even more (Amnesty International, 2017). Along with this uphill battle faced by the rural areas for reconstruction, they have been unable to attract tourists for adventure activities. During this time, Nepal received global attention and at the same time great interest from the potential travelers, which could be one of the strong reasons for increase in the tourist arrivals the following year. National Tourism Board is leaved no stones unturned to enhance the image of Nepal by doing carrying out aggressive promotional activities in major source markets such as China, India, the US, the UK and Sri Lanka. Similarly, the National Tourism Board (NTB) had announced the year 2017 as ‘Visit Nepal Year in Europe’ (logos in figure 1). It was expected to increase the European tourists by 30-40% for which the representatives of NTB have been visiting many European countries such as Switzerland, Russia, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and Denmark (The Himalayan Times, 2017). In 2017, a total of 2,288 Finnish Tourists visited Nepal, which was 350 more than the previous year (World Tourism Organization, 2019). According the latest official statistics (Ministry of Culture, Tourism &

Civil Aviation, 2019) the total number of tourists in 2017 was just under a million and in 2018, Nepal finally for the first time had more than a million tourists in a fiscal year with a total of 1.17 million.

Figure 1: Visit Nepal campaign logos. (Source: Visit Nepal Europe, 2017; Travel Nepal, 1998;

Visit Nepal, 2020)

This year 2020 is termed as ‘Visit Nepal 2020’ with a slogan ‘’lifetime experiences’’. The aim is to attract at least 2 million tourists by the end of the year. And, Nepal government is focusing on five different sectors to achieve this i.e. People & Heritages, Nature & Wildlife, Culture Cities & Leisure, Religion & Pilgrimage, and Adventure & Outdoor (Nepal Everest Base Camp, 2020).

Overall, it is a fact that tourism is one of the most important industries in Nepal and an important tool for development in rural areas. It does not only help to create economy prosperity to the rural population but also gives rural communities to share their culture and traditions to the outside world. As seen in Sirubari village, where the village tourism started, it has encouraged locals to build homestays, produce handicrafts and get involved in various traditional activities. The local community has taken care of the development process through locally set up tourism management groups. This channels the economic benefits directly to the locals and the revenue is subsequently used to carry out various local conservation programs. Having said that, the authenticity of the rural destinations might get affected due to the integration with foreign culture. Similarly, as the rural destinations sees the changes through economic growth, there will be decrease in the rate of migration of the people from the villages to the cities as there will be the availability of job opportunities (Shakya, 2011, p.

119). It even encourages in-migration, encouraging people from other destinations to migrate.

If the rural destinations around the cities start to get into development process, the migration towards the cities would decrease, which could check the population density in already populated cities. So, in the long run, ultimately bring changes in the outlook of rural

destinations, as there is constant availability of manpower in the local communities to carry out future development projects.

1.3 Previous research

According to Möller, Thulemark and Engström (2014, p. 27) point out that the image of rural area is no more limited to its traditional characteristics, rather, it is taken into as the being part of wider national or international relationship. Because, for these areas whose economic structure is dominated by tourism, their image and perception are changed in the course of time as tourists bring internationalization to its traditional structure. And, for tourists to travel to a new place, their perception of a destination’s image as a preferred choice is vital (Ragavan, Subramonian and Sharif, 2014). Therefore, as rural tourism is constantly going under transformation, for the tourists, it has been explained and interpreted through various perspectives.

In case of Nepal, it has been mostly explained on the basis of its economic and social impacts to the local community. It was in 1995 when rural tourism program was included in the national tourism policy. The concept of village/rural tourism was launched in Sirubari, a small village located in western part of Nepal. Sirubari is one of the most attractive villages in Nepal and also considered as the model village for village tourism (Pokharacity, 2013). Sirubari relied on the strong base of Gurung culture and undamaged rural traditions and that was an attraction for tourists to visit the village. In practice, the Tourism Development and Management Committee of the village would allocate the tourists/guests to local families on rotational basis so everyone could get the chance to be the hosts. With this homestay practice, there is an opportunity for culture exchange i.e. guests would share the residence of the hosts, experience their daily village lifestyle, taste local food and in return, hosts get to understand guests’ eating habits, gender roles, norms of privacy etc. (Walter, Regmi and Khanal, 2018).

Especially, homestays help to fulfil the desire of responsible tourist who want to have authentic traditional ways of life while having positive economic and social impacts to the host community (Carnaffan, 2014, p. 229). This concept of village tourism has been popular in village tourism and is being followed by many other Gurung villages in the country. And, for this concept to be successful, the cooperation between local and government is important as seen in the case of Sirubari (Thapa, 2010).

Apart from the village tourism, much of the tourism activities in Nepal have been concentrated within the areas of trekking, mountaineering and wildlife excursion. For tourists, the harsh topographical features in the rural areas are the attraction as these are ideal for adventure activities. In addition; traditional cultural practices, diversity of both local people, hot springs and biological diversity in the region are other attractions for tourists (Mutana and Mukwada, 2018). These adventure activities and other tourism related activities have been a source of income for the locals. Stevens (1993) examined the economic effect of tourism on the Sherpas living in the mountainous Everest region and improvement in their living lifestyle. He found out that the development process in the Everest region has been done without much negative effect on the region’s environment & cultural aspects and has provided jobs opportunities for the poor and increased the local agricultural business.

More research is done on interpretation of rural tourism around the world by focusing on local communities and tourists. For instance, Ghaderi and Henderson (2012) discuss rural tourism in Iran through the community perspective by interviewing the locals of Hawraman village regarding their views on the impact of tourism in the economic, environmental, social and sustainable development. Despite the economic benefits, the locals were concerned over lack of tourism strategy, incompetent government policies and the reluctance of the authorities to communicate with them on making contribution on the village’s tourism scene. Similarly, Kastenholz, Carneiro, Marques & Lima (2012), examine the locals’ and tourists’ tourism experience of historical village of Linhares de Beira, Portugal thorough interviews. It is concluded that for Linhares de Beira to provide a genuine tourism experience environment to its visits, the village should rely not only on its historical significance, rurality and nature, but also different other experiences in the form of gastronomy, sports and arts. The process of interviewing or collecting data from both tourists and locals helps service providers identify the reasons why tourists want to visit the area. In their research on conducted research on the push factors that drive rural tourism amongst senior travelers in Australia, Lewis and D’Alessandro (2019) found out that three major reasons, i.e. Relaxation & Escape, Novelty

& Adventure, and a Romantic Getaway. These push factors give rural tourism an image of a place for recreation, and reconnecting with one’s interests, and relationships. And, these factors can be used by the service providers as a base to provide their services and activities that serves those motives.

According to Crouch (2006, p.355), the tourism industry has turned the rural attraction into commodities and its rural features such as landscape, nature and wilderness are used to construct the rural meaning and sold it to the tourists. Mackay, Perkins and Taylor (2014, p.

43) second that statement by saying that the countryside is no more interpreted on the actual traditional rural commodities, rather, it is also looked on how it is presented to the domestic and foreign tourists. It can be found true in their case of The Cromwell District of Central Otago of New Zealand, which is known for its natural scenery, wild environments, adventure activities, eco-tourism and novel cuisine, and it draws attraction for these activities, attractions and facilities for the tourists in the area. They describe that, to create attraction and experience for diverse group of tourists in these rural areas, the rural commodities are maintained, adapted and created in the process of rural restructuring. This increasingly modifying practice of traditional rural areas by adding varied elements into the mix makes it continuously globalized

& diversified, thus making rural New Zealand a global multifunctional countryside (Mackay et al., 2014. p. 55). During the rural restructuring, one could question the authenticity of the service. As Cohen (2012, p. 311) points out, authenticity of the rural place remains beyond the grasps of the tourists because due to the modernity in tourism development as the settings are staged for the tourists, they are unable to penetrate the false fronts, which they are presented and see the authentic life that is hid behind the staged one. Having said that, Raspaud and Hallé (2014) point out that even though there should be authenticity in the tourism services, the tourism service providers or local stakeholders should be aware of the minimum level of acceptance or in other words, the services should be acceptable with certain level of quality that fits the tourists’ demand.

At the forefront of providing an image of rurality to the tourists are the service providers.

Bardone and Kaaristo (2014, p. 105) researched on creating a rural identity in Estonian farms.

The southern Estonia has a topography that is suitable for various physical activities. The enterprises have themselves staged possibilities for those activities and in most cases the entrepreneurs are themselves accompanying the tourists in these activities and adding their personal stories, which gives multitude of sensory experiences to the tourists to form their own understanding of that area. Furthermore, the entrepreneurs create their own version of rurality by staging and performing freely in their own way (Bardone and Kaaristo, 2014, p. 111) and this gives different understanding of rurality to different tourists depending on how and what services they experienced during their time in the area. In the case of homestays, the host

family can create a unique bond with the guests and help give the meaning of rural tourism to the guests. And, these rural home stays can be made in accordance to the heritage and traditions of the past lifestyle that gives authentic experience to the tourists, which adds positive economic and social impacts (Carnaffan, 2014, p. 233).

Overall, many researches have been carried all over the world regarding rural tourism and rural tourism can be viewed through different perspectives in many different countries. The researchers have found out many ways how tourism can have a significant impact on the social and economic structure of the rural community. Also, it helps to identify strategies to improve the tourist experience in these rural destinations while retaining economic, socio-cultural and environmental sustainability. In the case of Nepal, it has given the local community an alternative to generate source of income. But it has also come at the expense of the local environment and sociocultural state.

1.4 Purpose of the study

The research explores how rurality is viewed through social constructionism by covering theoretical concepts of rural tourism, hospitality and authenticity. According to Short (1991, p.34), the concept of rurality or countryside provides the sense of harmony, peace and stability (Short, 1991, p. 34). It is the nature of human beings that once we get tired of stress and complexity, we start appreciating the simplicity of nature (Tuan, 1974, p. 103). That is the period when people get attracted to the rural lifestyle. For the rural destinations, it is important to know on what basis these tourists make their choice to visit rural areas. By knowing their motivations & expectations, destination managers can identify new ways to improve their services and attract more tourists. The arrival of tourists in these rural destinations brings source of income for the locals and the manner in which these locals treat tourist matters a great deal on the overall rural tourism experience. The concept of hospitality centers on the relationship between guest and a host or in other words one’s relation to other (Höckert, 2015, p. 94). The authentic aspect, which could be considered the most important, of rural tourism is about presenting local culture, arts, festivals, dances and other techniques.

As majority of the previous researches on rural tourism in Nepal has focused on its affects, there is a lack of research done on analyzing the experiences of tourists visiting these rural areas and the factors that help them understand the concept of rurality in rural tourism. This study responds to that research gap on tourists’ (Finnish) perspective in the context of rural Nepal. The results can be useful not only for Nepalese local tourism service providers but also for any businesses that is targeting Finnish tourists. As a person who had a rural upbringing back in Nepal and have personally seen the potential of rural tourism on developing the economic, socio-cultural and environmental state of rural destinations. In the near future, I plan to return back home and establish a tourism business in my village. With all those things in mind, this study will seek to provide an answer to the following research question:

‘How Finnish tourists socially construct rurality in a Nepalese tourism context?

To help answer the main research question, three sub-questions have been created.

1. Which are the social and cultural meanings that Finnish tourists attach to Nepalese rurality?

2. How guest-host relationship between the locals and Finnish tourists affect the way they conceptualize rurality?

3. What role does authenticity play in the social construction of Nepalese rurality by Finnish tourists?

1.5 Structure of the study

The structure of the study consists of three phases, i.e. theoretical framework, methodology and, results and discussions.

Chapter two is the theoretical framework, which opens up about social construction and its relation to rurality. Rural tourism is explained in a broader scale that includes the demand side of rural tourism. In addition, this chapter also elaborates on the concepts of hospitality and authenticity, which helps to further understand on how Finnish tourists perceive Nepalese rurality.

The methodology section in Chapter three, which describes the methods that were used to collect the data in this study. For collecting data, a semi-constructed in-depth interview was used, where the author carried out in-depth interviews with seven different people and the data were later analyzed using content analysis.

Results and discussions of the study can be found in chapter four, which consists two parts i.e.

data analysis and discussions. The empirical data collected through qualitative analysis is analyzed using content analysis. On the basis of analysis, the chapter describes various factors on the basis of which Finnish tourists construct the meaning of rurality in Nepalese context.

2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Social construction of rurality and rural tourism

Social constructionism is a philosophy, which thinks that social reality is constructed together.

In society we classify things and in different languages it has different classifications with completely new vocabulary than the others. Vivien (2015, p. 51) also points out that lot of things around us are socially derived and socially maintained. They are created by human beings who share meanings through being member of the same society or culture and the members themselves have a major role to play on constructing the meaning of the space through their practices and daily lives (Sherval, 2009). When people are born into a particular society, they build their own personal identities through socialization provided thorough institutions like family, friends, education system, mass media etc., and in time people develop their perceptions and thoughts about things (Iwashita, 2003). Boghossian (2001) states similar views on social construction stating that it is connected to our social lives and things around us have names and meanings, which wouldn’t have existed if we hadn’t given it in the first place. The social force makes you give the things names, characteristics and our beliefs, which ultimately create an image about them. Furthermore, as Gergen (2015, p. 3) states that in social construction, what we see things in the world around us are dependent on the relationship we have with them and our thoughts and emotions changes in regard to the reality and objectivity of those things. Similarly, our individual identity is created by interaction with other people and our reactions to the actions and expectations of the society. Our individual existence is based on the perception of what others think of us. All the different versions that we see of ourselves from the eyes of other people in the society and combined into one to give us the concept of who we are.

The concept of rurality goes beyond the limits of statistical data; it depends on the views, lifestyle and habits of the people living in these areas (Möller et al., 2014, p. 25). In the beginning of 1990s, the understanding of rural changed from objective and materialistic to subjectively constructed social phenomenon (Anjos and Caldas, 2014). Halfacree (1993) describes rural in two different terms i.e. space, where rurality is defined according to its socio- spatial characteristics and physical and social attributes of the location, and social representation, where rurality is understood more like a concept and symbolic representation.

In social representation, rurality is placed at a distant and it is expressed & interpreted (Gray, 2000). Similarly, Jones (1995) states similar thoughts with his concept of lay discourses, which is construction of rural by the people within the context of their everyday lives. In this scenario, we can say that in tourism today, destinations are socially and culturally constructed by service providers to cater to the targeted tourist groups (Iwashita, 2003). Having said that, even though the image can be changed, the physical and natural aspect of the destination will still be the same and that could be the item that trigger tourists’ perception of that particular destination.

According to the research done on social representation by Rye (2006) on teenagers in rural Norway on how they describe rural, the result was that most of the youth associate rurality with both boredom and idyllic, with the latter one being more common. Furthermore, in this research, their relationship with nature was seen as their base for representation of rural.

Similarly, Sherval (2009) states that in US, the perception of rural is stereotyped and is still described as ‘on a frontier’ or ‘on a margin’ implying that rural is outside the civilized society with being static and with extremely difficult geographic reach. Rurality is however not static but constantly changing. In her research on native Alaskans, it was found that they pride themselves being from Alaska and their community & rurality. Moreover, they are perfectly capable to have a culturally productive, workable and sustainable space as the region is rich in natural resources and they are more than able to economically sustain themselves by using them. Despite being able to generate large profit from these businesses, Alaska it is still deemed rural, therefore there has to be better definition of rural as destinations have varying degree of rurality, remoteness and distance. Little (2008, p. 89) voices similar concerns on the difficulty on describing rurality and states that even though that construction of rurality is based on how we see our relationship with the nature, due to the increase in tourism in the rural areas, there is the change in socio-cultural, economic aspects and the natural settings, which makes it further difficult to conceptualize the meaning of rurality.

On an individual level, humans are affected by their relationship with the environment and the impact of urbanization on their mentality, which persuades them to appreciate rurality (Tuan, 1974, p.92). There is a sense of Topophilia among people, which is having an emotional connection with a place or physical environment. The visual enjoyment within the humans who have these sorts of experiences is even more of a compelling factor that attracts them to these rural destinations. According to Tuan (1974, p. 95), just because on experiences tourism

doesn’t necessarily mean he connects with the nature; the appreciation of the landscape experience is felt more when the he can connect it with his past human incidents with the nature. The identity is not based on the characteristics of the rural space or the objectivity, rather it depends on the way each individual view on it. Individuals who are brought up in different social environment and experiences will have different understanding of rurality (Roberts and Hall, 2001, p. 38). The difference in the mentality or the perceptions of the individuals living in different regions is that, a normal lifestyle for the residents in rural areas might appear to be a place for healthy lifestyle, rich in nature, clean environment and place for a getaway from stress for the people from urban areas.

According to Lane (1994), rurality should consist of three aspects i.e. it should have spatial settlement, mostly dominated by farming and forest based economic activities, and traditional social structure such as lifestyles and mentality. Meanwhile, George, Mair and Reid (2009, p.

9) state that traditionally, the meaning of rural is formed as the opposite of Urban and is seen by the tourists as the place where the idea of modernization and globalization is least welcomed. Berkowitz and Schulz-Greve (2001) describe that in the European Union, rural is about how the land is being put to use by nature and human beings. Some of the features of European rural areas are that they are affected by population declines, high unemployment rate and decline in agriculture related employments.

Table 1: Varying national criteria for defining rural (Source: Roberts and Hall, 2001, p. 11).

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes rural as

the areas where more than 50% of the people live in rural communities and the population density is below 150 inhabitants per square kilometers (Depoele, 2001. p. 151), and according to Butler and Kaye (2012, p. 7) that rural destinations have population under 2,500. Roberts and Hall (2001, p. 12) express that there have been regular differences between various scholars on the definition of rural with some focusing on the difference in characteristics between the tourists own and host destination; others focusing on the density of the population in the specific area. As it is seen in table 1, different countries have their own criteria and parameters for defining a region to be rural especially in regard to the population density because the rural distribution is different between countries (Roberts and Hall, 2001, p. 12).

Lane (1994) also describes rural tourism should be small in scale, located in rural areas and should have rural characteristics such as open space, contact with the nature, serve as the future development of the area and represent the rural economy, history and location. It is about ecotourism, nature holidays, culture and heritage sightings, hiking etc. and furthermore serves as a platform for local residents to showcase their culture, heritage, festivals and lifestyle to the outside world. Similarly, Jegdic, Skrabic and Milosevic (2017) characterizes rural as being close to nature areas, sparse settlements, and agriculture and forestry as one of the main economic sectors. Within rural tourism, the activities in these areas are usually dominated by outdoor activities related to rural environment including the possibility to experience the farm culture, walking, horse riding and various other activities (Ryglova, Rasovska and Sacha, 2017). In addition to that, Lane (1994) lists out cross-country skiing, rural heritage studies, and wilderness holidays some other activities and holiday types in rural destinations. Rural tourism has many different stakeholders i.e. local community, tourists, local government, destination management organizations and tour operators. These stakeholders work together in a collaborative partnership to raise the quality of tourism services and pursue economic development to the rural destination and uplift the living standard of the local community (Nylander and Hall, 2005, p. 18). The rural tourism is also used to promote as sustainable tourism and eco-tourism, with the main aim of minimizing the negative impacts of tourism on economic, social and environmental aspects of the rural destination while preserving the authenticity of the region and its cultural values (Jegdic et al., 2017).

The involvement of tourism in rural areas has changed its perception. The interaction between modernity and tradition can be clearly seen in rural areas where tourism is a dominant industry.

The increase in visitor numbers modifies tourism’s scale and scope and in time, it changes the traditional understanding of rural (Hall, Roberts and Mitchell, 2003, p. 227). Nowadays, tourists visiting in the rural areas do not limit their activities that are only rural in nature (Sharpley, 2006, p. 147). Also, tourists’ selection doesn’t always depend on rural destinations’

natural settings but also the destination-specific attributes especially the tourist facilities.

Traditional rural places have been mostly associated with stagnation and they are understood to be holding back from development. In touristic towns, they are open to constant growth and because of the social engagement the tourists bring to the place, these add something else to the existing rurality and that makes these touristic rural areas bit different from traditional rural space. As seen in the field research conducted by Möller et al. (2014, p. 28) in Sälen, Sweden;

the village is considered by the locals as rural because of its location and features like low criminality, easier to move freely, poor public transport system but at the same time there are other entertainment and facilities that make it modern. This flourishing of tourism destination brings the change in the perception of a village as either rural or not as these hotels, parks and resorts have been built to entertain the tourists, which are far from the rural experience (Lane, 1994).

Hall et al. (2003, p. 4) state that in these tourist destinations, the addition of recreation and tourism activities have changed the image or rural destinations from passive to an active that can bring significant economic, environmental and social change (Hall et al., 2003, p. 4). In rural tourism, landscapes have been the main attraction and in the past literary and artistic figures played an important role on associating wild and remote landscapes visits to being socially desirable (Urry, 1995, p. 213). Rural places attract tourists who want to experience the image of rurality. As for people living especially in urban environment, countryside has a cultural significance and they generally associate it to having authentic experience. (Sharpley, 2006, p. 143). It could also be to get connected to experiencing rural tourism in reference to their upbringing and past experiences as some of the visitors stated in the exploratory study carried out by Sharpley and Jepson (2011) on a rural destination called Lake District in UK.

In Addition to these past experiences, it could also be on the basis of the material knowledge and emotional connection that tourists have with the place in general (Espelt and Benito, 2005).

In many cases, the locals preserving the traditional image of the place may not be eager to welcome them (Hall et al. 2003, p. 8). The process of their place being turned into a recreational space can create varied perceptions among the locals. Individuals react to the tourism development in their area on the basis of their values they relate to development in general and how they conceive their standard of life (Boyne, 2003, p. 34). This creates constant conflicts between two institutions in the rural areas i.e. traditional institutions like families, churches, agriculture etc. who are naturalists and want to keep the space conserved &

unspoiled and leisure/tourism companies who view rural areas as a site for profitable development. And, these companies have turned rural into a leisure resource which can never return to its original condition (Urry, 1995, p. 222). Similarly, Sharpley (2003, p. 42) also point out similar concern of conflict especially in regard to the extent of use of rural resources for social and economic purposes as there are numerous agencies and organizations involved in planning, managing and exploitation of the countryside.

The role of locals, service providers and other tourism agents have an important role to play to construct the image of a rural destination. As discussed above, the practice of external tour operators selling promotional materials for their destination may not always go well with the locals. In many cases it may feel that, the imagined countryside is just the promotional tactics by tour operators, and it may just be limited to this and from tourists’ perspective, they might not be able be able to experience it (Sharpley, 2006, p. 143). Having said that, the importance of these players cannot be underestimated. In their research; Shen, Wang, Quan and Xu (2019) measured rurality of rural tourism destinations in relationship between rurality and rural tourism in China. They found that rurality doesn’t really make the foundation of rural tourism, rather, the data suggested, a destination with less rural features are getting more tourism business than its counterparts, the main reason being that the image of the destination was properly constructed by tourists and service providers or developers. Tourists never arrive to a new destination with zero perception as they have already subjectively travelled to that destination before through various tourist promotional materials. And, these perceptions depend a lot on how locals, tourism service providers and other travel guides construct the image of the destination on the basis of what a tourist should see at the destination (Gladstone, 2005, p. 104). Similarly, Hoggart and Paniagua (2001) also highlight the importance of these agents stating that, popularity of a destination also falls down to the non-local populations, the tour operators & agents who sell the countryside as image of rural tourism is being sold by the

agents. Along with the outside players, the local entrepreneurs also an important role to play on creating an appropriate image of a destination and maintaining the positive image to continuously attracting tourists to the destination (Butler and Russell, 2012, p. 132).

2.2 Host-Guest relationship

The hospitality industry consists of vast categories such as accommodation, food establishments, recreation facilities, transportation, event planning and other fields within the tourism industry. The primary objective behind all these categories within hospitality is to provide positive experience to their guests. According to Bell (2012, p. 29), hospitality is about encounters between people that involve the movement of the guest to the territory of the host.

The hosts are the locals who are welcoming the guests and these guests as Höckert (2015, p.

94) describes, are travelers receiving hospitality in hosts’ home. Once both the hosts and guests and in similar environment, it creates interaction between them, which is fundamental and lies at the central position in tourism (Saarinen and Manwa, 2008). Christou and Sharpley (2019) also state that tourism is defined by the nature of people’s interaction and furthermore provide the reasons for these travelers visiting rural areas as seeking to escape from busy routines and have an urge for more social interactions. They further state that the rural tourism is perfect setting for having philoxenic experiences, the most generous form of hospitality.

In rural tourism, the concept of host-guest relationship is very important. It is the responsibility of the hosts to make the tourists feel welcome and provide the guests required information and recommendation about the destination (Tucker, 2003, p. 88). In the case of tourism, the guests are the tourists who make the visit and the local communities are the hosts whose main goal is to provide tourists with special and memorable travel experiences. For guests, in many cases, hosts are the source of information and they constantly look for local knowledge and guidance in various activities from local food, culture to sightseeing. Apart from this, the hosts can also provide information about appropriate tourist behaviors and local customs, this way, they will be able to influence the guests’ actions and behaviors during their stay. From hosts’

perspective, they can also feel the sense of responsibility on helping out guests on having the best of the experiences, thus happily provide as much information as possible. As Tucker (2003, p. 83) further explains, the process of host-guest interaction matures into relationship during the duration of the visit and stranger to a friend transformation is made. This also brings

a sense of extra responsibility for the hosts to be more aware for the guests’ actions because they might feel that they are responsible for the guests outside their homes or nearby surroundings. We can also see how the relationship between the hosts and guests can be socially constructed. The hosts can create a friendly mood and be hospitable to the guests.

Furthermore, they can create healthy relationship with the guests by learning various hospitality skills from the help of the tourism experts helping with the tourism development in the area. For instance, in the case of San Ramón, Nicaragua; the tourism experts in the area offered trainings and courses that helped the hosts to become more confident in their skills of becoming a good host (Höckert, 2015, p. 224). Rheede and Dekker (2016) highlights that hosts along with the skills, they should also learn how to include those practices within the organization system. This makes it much easier for them to convey the importance of even the complex issues like sustainable practices in regard to saving energy, water and waste reduction without directly enforcing them.

Christou, Farmaki and Evangelou (2018) state that during the guests’ stay, the hosts try to trigger nostalgic activities, that relates to rural tourism, through activities such as engaging them in traditional activities and focusing on authentic and rural related elements. These interactions are fundamental to tourism (Saarinen and Manwa, 2008) and can elevate the experience of the tourists and at the same time, they can help the hosts on co-creating their own rural tourism experiences. As Höckert (2015, p. 245) describes in her research on hospitality in San Ramón, that even though the hosts had spent lot of money to re-decorate the room to make it look good, they wanted to provide as authentic experience as possible to their guest in terms of rural tourism, thus, they included various aspects of domestic life like eating local food, playing football with children, listening to local radio etc^. It should be noted that, during these activities there might be a risk of having a superficial social encounter between the host and host and guests if the latter decides not to participate. Along with the hosts, it is also the responsibility of the tourists to indulge themselves with the locals because higher the social encounter engaged by the guests, higher their tourism experience (Kastenholz, Carneiro, Euesbio and Figueiredo, 2013). In any rural destination, there is the limit for tourism growth and the traditional view on these destinations is that they are somehow conservative society, and their social and cultural norms should be respected and handled very carefully. When the limits are crossed, conflicts arise between the guests and hosts. These conflicts result on guests’ negative tourism experience and the meaning they construct regarding to rurality could

be completely different compared to the ones who have faced much friendlier local environment. Therefore, there has to be correct balance of restriction & obligation and at the same time the guests should be given their own privacy & independence. The hosts’

perspective should be the same. Along with the destination information, they can make the guests aware of the social and cultural etiquettes of the host community and also share with them the previous inappropriate incidents and the way they were handled (Tucker, 2003, p.

83). The hosts should be welcoming enough, because even if there is amazing scenery and authentic rural settings but poor hospitality, the guests will not be able to enjoy properly. And, this relationship that guests built with the hosts during their stay determines the success of their trip and could also be the deciding factor for a revisit in the future.

Figure 3: Circular transformation process. (Source: George et al., 2009, p. 127).

The host-guest relationship should be viewed as a social phenomenon (Causevic and Lynch, 2009) where there is transaction of various aspects between hosts and guests. Lashley, Lynch and Morrison (2007, p. 174) describe this transaction as interactional in nature with aspects such as social, cultural, economic and psychological are in a way crossed over between each other. In rural communities, the hosts expect their guests to abide by their parameters not only in their home but also in the surrounding area. The tourist-receiving environment in rural tourism should be aware that transforming tourists into guests through hospitality can bring a lot of change in the behaviors and experiences of the guests. George et al. (2009, p. 126) describes this situation as cultural transformation process during host-guest interaction as seen in figure 3. They state that culture is always dynamic; so, when tourists/guests visit any rural

destination, there is certainty that the host culture and the tourists’ culture get blended in as both the parties give some and take some of the characteristics of each other’s culture. This transformation process might put a risk on the sustainability of local culture and identities.

Xue, Kerstetter and Hunt (2017) find this situation in case of the younger generations in Chongdu Valley residents in China, that they were starting to get effected by tourist lifestyles as they are exposed to pop music, movie, video games etc., and in the long run the possibility of losing their own identity within the society. Therefore, the implication of the host-guest relationship is very important in rural tourism and with the right balance in it, rural tourism can definitely sustain for a long period of time. According to Dorobantu and Nistoreanu (2012), the local community is an important player in rural tourism equation, as it is the community’s daily ritual, costumes and handicraft articles that compel tourists to return back to the destination. These interaction between the guests and hosts in these spaces provides identity to rural tourism. In many occasions, the local community might have a very less control on how the identity of the area is portrayed outside, rather it is controlled by tour operators, tourism experts assigned to carry out tourism development in the area and guests who have visited the place. In the case of San Ramon, the travel blogs related to the place was handled by the guests and they were the ones playing active role on inviting new guests to the area Höckert (2015, p. 174). In other words, the locals in San Ramón were excluded and didn’t control their own guests to their homes.

As we view the relationship between host and guests through the lens of hospitality and social exchange, the commercial side of this should be reviewed too. AsAramberri (2001) points out that the host-guest model doesn’t work anymore as it is limited in modern tourism as bulk of the tourism takes places in the industrial communities where the objective is financial transaction, i.e. hosts provide the service and guests paying for it. And, in the rural areas, tourism being one of the sources of income, this could affect the interpretation of host-guest relationship. This relationship be uneven in terms of power as hosts could be more depended on the guests for economic sustainability (Joseph and Kavoori, 2001), which can influence their interaction with the guest and vice versa. This ultimately can determine the quality of their own tourism experience for both of them.

2.3 Rural authenticity

The earliest discussions regarding authenticity in tourism was initiated by MacCannell (1973).

According to him, as normal day-to-day life doesn’t satisfy people, they search for experiences that are true and authentic. He proposed the concept of staged authenticity which refers to staging of local culture and tradition to create an impression of authenticity to the tourists.

Since then, there has been various versions of definition of authenticity from different academics depending on what means authentic to them. According to Heitmann (2011, p. 45), authenticity in simple context refers to the genuine, unadulterated ’real thing’ but when needed to define, it becomes difficult, as its interpretations tend to vary depending upon studied object and the context it is discussed in. In addition, the nature of discussion on authenticity changes depending upon who raises the issue of authenticity. This makes authenticity no longer a fixed one, rather a social process where different opinions argue with each other to confirm their own version of interpretation (Bruner, 1994). The view of authenticity is fluid (Cohen, 1988), negotiable and furthermore, it depends upon the tourists to determine if something is authentic for them or not, which can be influenced by their experiences, historical sources and other media products like film and literature Månsson (2010, p. 170). These experiences can include their travel experiences, education background among other things that creates their own perceptions and these effects the influence of their authentic experience (Heitmann, 2011, p.

50) including the degree of their alienation from modernity (Cohen, 1988).

The tourism industry very much relies upon on idea of authenticity as tourists are frequently looking for authentic local experience and their search for authenticity is triggered by their need to find things that are lacking in their own periphery and in search of their own self- identity (Smith and Duffy, 2003, p. 114-116). MacCannell (1999, p. 101) states that tourists want to have this experience, but it cannot be assured if they are getting to experience something real or something that have been set up to satisfy his/her desire for authenticity.

And, the illusion that is caused by the locals for tourists’ satisfaction is termed as staged authenticity, which Maoz (2006) terms as instant authenticity packed in a nice package. It is common in mass tourism situation where tourists are put in these staged tourism spaces with

‘no exit’, which would turn out to be an inauthentic and superficial tourism experience (Cohen, 1988). It’s not that the locals are fooling them or cheating them from having authentic experience. The modern-day tourists are very much aware of ‘pseudo-events’ that are created

for them and their tourism experience is quite superficial with little authenticity (Boorstin 1992, p. 102), and they are fine with this negotiable concept of authenticity because even though they are aware that the items are of mass-production, they still buy to have a sense of authenticity during their trip. when they are catered with improvised version of activities and lifestyles during their visits (Shaw and Williams, 2004, p. 28).

According to Wang (1999), MacCannell’s concept of quest of authenticity being the sole reason for travel wasn’t explanatory enough to explain authentic experience in tourism studies.

He divides authenticity into three different types: objective, constructive (or symbolic), and existential. The experience is said to be objective because the toured object is originally recognized as authentic. Constructive authenticity is when objects appear authentic even though it would not be inherently authentic but only appear as a result of social construction such as point of view, beliefs or perspectives. Finally, the existential authenticity deals with the tourists’ personal feelings irrespective to the authenticity of the object or the tour itself.

On further discussing the concept of constructive authenticity, it is subjective and relative in nature (Cohen, 1988) and everyone within the tourism space (tourists, locals, tourism agents etc.) are participating in the social construction of the meanings of objects that creates different versions of authenticities. Tiberghien, Bremmner and Milne (2020) state that authenticity happens from social process and both the locals and the tourists have their own view on this, therefore it is crucial to understand each of the party’s perception on authenticity during the tourism experience creating process. Tourists actively create meaning of their own tourism experiences (Littrell, Anderson and Brown, 1993). Each tourist has his/her own personal views and perspective on how they interpret these objects. Thus, the degree of authenticity depends on the interest and depth of experience of the tourists as some might be less strict on the accepting a product or attraction authentic compared to others who are much stricter and find the same product as planned or simulated (Cohen 1988). In his research Bruner (1994) gives the example of New Salem Historical site, the meaning of this place is constructed throughout the process of their visit of the place as the tourists are constantly interacting with the interpreters & guides. Furthermore, the process of tourist attraction is a social construction and their interpretation is influenced by various kinds of former experiences of visiting the actual place and personal lives (Bruner, 1994; Sjöholm, 2010, p. 162). The tour operators and destination managers constantly target tourists’ quest for authenticity by using terms as true, unique or the real thing while suggesting authenticity (Heitmann, 2011, p. 48). Before being

at the destination, tourists are fed with images of the destination which can have an influence on tourist behaviors (Tasci, 2006). Consequently, there is already some preconceived idea on how the venue will look like, and once we are at the destination, tourists experience and perceive according the image that were formed beforehand. For many tourists that would be the closest that they come with genuine authentic amenities of the destination, so whatever is presented in front of them might be quite authentic for them.

In the case of rural communities, tourists are attracted to them on the basis of local amenities such as culture, heritage, recreation activities and natural landscapes, which can provide authentic and unique experience to the tourists (Stolarick, Denstedt, Donald and Spencer (2010). In rural settlements, when the community is looking forward to make tourism developments in their area, they should be very aware of 3 different things i.e. keeping cultural sustainability while gaining economic benefits, commodification of selected attraction and preservation of others, and collaboration of all the stakeholders within the community to construct, manage and commodification of such attractions (George et al., 2009, pp. 135-136).

The rural way of life could be a set up to attract more tourists in these destinations. So, when the tourists visit the place, the authenticity of their experience on integrating with the rural life could be considered as staged form of rural life (Lynch, McIntosh and Tucker, 2009, p. 149).

And, this act of commodification of cultural aspect to meet the demand of the tourists’ shapes the settlements in rural spaces (Roberts and Hall, 2001, p. 48). This can be viewed in both negative and positive manner. Any type of staged authenticity can be important in protecting the deep and authentic meanings of traditional culture (Ivanovic, 2008, p. 121). Also, there are old customs which might be have been close to extinct can be revived due to these practices adding more authentic aspects to the community. For instance, doing cultural shows by the locals for economic benefits, but behind it, the locals are able to keep their rural culture and tradition alive. Cohen (1988) seconds the view by stating that the growth of tourism market helps to preserve and also revive cultural traditions which otherwise would disappear and through the commodification of culture, these are transformed into saleable product to cater the demand and expectation of the tourists for the purpose of their consumption.

However, it can be difficult for the rural areas on providing rural tourism experience in the time when commodification is becoming common in rural environment (Page and Getz, 1997, p. 7) Similar concern is presented by Nunez and Lett (1989, p. 266) describing that host

communities are likely to start adapting to the demands of the tourists which could bring change in the host community and make it more like tourists’ culture. It creates a situation where the locally identified cultures and traditions are used as saleable commodities, packaged as cultural experiences to the tourists (George, et al., 2009, p. 133). These actions done on the name of creating authenticity impacts communities who are the subject to consumption as they will have to perform a caricature of themselves to satisfy tourists’ needs (Smith and Duffy, 2003, p. 133) and due to repeated performances of activities, the real authentic value of these objects is lost.

Overall, it can be quite challenging task for rural communities to maintain the authenticity of the place once they incorporate tourism in their economy. As Shakya (2009, p. 87) states that in developing countries, rural tourism highly depends upon both natural and cultural attractions; undamaged landscapes and authentic lifestyles of indigenous people. With the increase in tourism in rural areas, local infrastructure, availability of tourism facilities and along with entrepreneurship and business opportunities will elevate. This phenomenon is explained as gentrification (George et al., 2009, p. 142) and due to this, the prior portrayed rural image of the place as traditional roots on farming, mining and fishing will be replaced by much prosperous middle-upper class lifestyle. And, with this, compromises have to be made by both tourists and the locals on their perception of rurality and what entails in authentic rural experience.